Sunday, March 27, 2011

Maryland Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Bill Passes In the House

A couple of weeks ago the Maryland House of Delegates collapsed under the weight of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. Yesterday they were presented with the question of whether to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and this time they came through, though the bill was gutted in a serious way.

Metro Weekly has this:

The Maryland House of Delegates voted 86-52 in favor of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, today, during the bill's third and final reading.

Sexual orientation is a dimension that describes who you are attracted to, gender identity describes who you are. While it may be common to conceive of gender in terms of two discrete categories based on unambiguous physical characteristics, in reality many people do not experience their lives that way.

Some people distinctly feel that they are the "other" gender from what their biological equipment suggests, some people's biological equipment is not itself clear, and some people do not particularly identify with either gender.

During discussions leading up to the vote, which began at noon, Del. Ariana Kelly (D-Montgomery) said the bill is about ending discrimination and that transgender people are "normal."

"There are not now, and never have been two simple boxes, male and female, that people fit into," Kelly said, "and that's okay."

Most people find that they do easily fit into a simple box, and that's the problem. Someone whose gender is simple might not be able to understand what it is like for someone else who differs from them. If they don't know better they may also believe that everyone's gender identity should be as simple as theirs. They may think that people who express their gender differently from them are up to something, or that there is something wrong with them. The result is prejudice and discrimination. Hence the need for a law.

Kelly's remaks followed those of Del. Joseph Minnick (D-Baltimore County), who mocked male-to-female transgender individuals he saw in the men's bathroom when the bill was in committee and said women should be "appalled" by the legislation.

Del. Michael A. McDermott (R-Wicomico and Worcester) was vocal about voting against the legislation.

"We're dealing with folks who don’t have a compass," he said, "they're not sure which direction points up."

I don't get this. He mocks male-to-female transgender individuals in the men's room and at the same time wants to make sure the law keeps them out of the ladies room. It is not hard to see that there is a problem here.

And doesn't it seem strange that this guy regards gender as a compass?

I can only guess that he is implying that gender-variant people are lacking a moral compass of some sort, and again that just seems weird. I'll assume that Mr. McDermott is one of those who feel comfortable in a discrete gender category. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is naive to assume that everyone else should feel the same as him.

Speaking of moral compasses, it is always enlightening to me when someone sends me literature from our local hate group, the Citizens for Responsible Whatever. At the moment they are calling themselves Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government. They sent out an urgent email blast last week, trying to get people to testify and lobby their delegates on this issue. Listen to what their president, Ruth Jacobs, has to say:

There are many reasons that this is a bad bill and while advocates are denying that it will affect the bathrooms, we have heard that before. The bill will affect workplace bathrooms, lockers and showers on the basis of "nondiscrimination." HB 235 would redefine Gender "as appearance expression, or behavior of an individual regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth." This redefines gender as expression or thought.

We need your help to stop this bill!

The bill in the state House excluded wording about "public accommodations," apparently to avoid facing a repeat of the bogus bathroom attack.

Transgender activist Dana Beyer and Lisa Deane-Polyak, who serves as vice president of Equality Maryland's board of directors, where in attendance in the House chambers to monitor the vote.

"We have a plan to go ahead," Beyer said. "Obviously its died, it's been killed the last four years in JPR, so it's a consideration, however, the composition in the Senate and of the JPR has changed. Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) is a hero to many people, and he's running with the bill, so I'm very hopeful that we will see a different result."

Deane-Polyak said she was gratified by passage of the bill, and the floor speeches in favor of the legislation, including one by Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), who admitted to being wrong on this issue in the past.

"Their speeches came through with the real authenticity and the real truth of this matter, which is that these folks are disproportionably subject to harm, this bill administratively is a step in the right direction of making all people equal under the law."

The article notes that Baltimore city and Montgomery County "provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation."

This bill passed by a wide margin in the House, as well it should. We'll see what happens as it moves toward the Senate.

15 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello! This bill will go nowhere.Laws have to be certain. This proposed law is not certain if you can’t define or provide the criteria for determining gender identity. What are the exact criteria that would allow a person to assert that they are of a sex that is inconsistent with their birth assignment and their actual anatomical presentation? You can’t make a person accept another person’s lie or delusion. DNA markers cannot be erased.

Hello! Laws are frequently uncertain, that’s why we have to have courts and judges to clarify what they mean, even if they are valid or not. All sorts of laws have been clarified, simplified, changed or declared unconstitutional over the years (usually) to better reflect what we have learned as a society, or through science. Laws change all the time.

“This proposed law is not certain if you can’t define or provide the criteria for determining gender identity.”

Can you provide the exact criteria for determining someone’s race? Or religion? There are lots of people who have “mixed” races, and they can even trace some of them through DNA. However, I’ve never seen a DNA test required from anyone bringing up a racial discrimination case. Nor have I ever seen a racist perform a DNA test before deciding whether or not to harass someone for their race. Would he decide not to harass a dark-skinned person if, after testing, the person he intended to harass was only 1/64th black?

And who decides whether the Jewish or Catholic guy that was killed by some bigoted act was “religious enough” to qualify for a hate crime enhancement to the penalty for the crime? You can’t find that in their DNA. You could ask some of their friends to see if they attended church regularly, but does that mean they were REALLY religious? Should the perp get off easier if it was just a guy who attended synagogue a couple of times a year?

“What are the exact criteria that would allow a person to assert that they are of a sex that is inconsistent with their birth assignment and their actual anatomical presentation?”

This is a bit of a quandary for me. My birth certificate now says “female,” and my “actual anatomical presentation” is also female. For anyone to assert that my sex is inconsistent with my birth assignment would take a whole lot of hounding around private records and court orders in a number of different jurisdictions. That kind of stuff is an invasion of privacy. Most people don’t know of that difference unless I tell them, or they new me before transition.

“You can’t make a person accept another person’s lie or delusion.”

That explains why the CRG’s paranoid delusions about anti-discrimination laws causing heterosexual guys to dress up like women so they can sneak into ladies’ rooms unnoticed and go raping women and girls without consequences aren’t getting them very far.

“DNA markers cannot be erased.”

No they can’t. But what we’ve learned from DNA testing over the years has shown us that the sex a person becomes is far more complex than XX=female and XY=male. There are a number of genetic and hormonal differences that can confound those simple equations, and that’s why the Olympic committee officially stopped using DNA testing for sex typing in 1999.

Somehow, I doubt you know how to actually do a DNA test, much less correctly interpret the results. So I’m left wondering why all the focus on DNA testing to begin with. After all, I have yet to see anyone ask for someone else’s DNA, or to check in their underwear before automatically assigning a gender to them and referring to them as a “he” or a “she.” Granted, it’s not always easy to tell. I was corrected by a 6 year old today when I incorrectly referred to his 4 month old sister in the grocery cart as “he.” Fortunately, SOMEONE will usually tell us when we get it wrong.

“discrimination laws are diificult (sic) to define and enforce without violating basic rights”

Discrimination laws have been enforced in our country for decades. Certainly there has been controversy over them from a number of complaining quarters, and not everyone agrees with the outcomes of these cases. However, I have yet to see one where someone’s “basic rights” was violated. Can you please provide at least one (preferably more) specific examples of what you’re talking about?

“they should only be enacted as a last ditch measure in extreme cases of hardship

that's not the situation with transgenders

want proof?”

Sure Anon, please provide some proof. You’ve been blathering here for years trying to make that point and never have. So please, feel free to provide proof any time.

Anon asked:

“if it was such a huge problem in MC, why has the only suit to be filed under law made by the person who authored the bill?”

Because most people are smart enough to work through a compromise before going through the hassles of taking their frivolous cases to court.

Being that I actually KNOW trans people living and transitioning in Montgomery county, I can tell you that at least one court battle was averted when a transwoman explained to her co-worker that the situation was becoming unbearable and that she was considering contacting a lawyer. She knew how the rumor mill worked at her company and within two days the situation was fixed. No lawyers, judges, court cases or lawsuits. Just people taking a step back, a deep breath, and chilling out for a bit to find out a better way to deal with the issue.

The one instance of the lawsuit you site isn’t proof of anything, except now that folks have an avenue to pursue cases like that.

if it was such a huge problem in MC, why has the only suit to be filed under law made by the person who authored the bill?

Now that the MoCoEthics Commission has ruled against Ruth Jacobs' personal vendetta against Dr. Beyer, the "author of the bill" probably has a legal leg to stand on in any discrimination lawsuits she might bring against those who have discriminated against her and I hope she sues every one of them so they might learn once and for all that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is wrong.

"...On February 28, 2008, she [Ruth Jacobs] went to the Giant in order to get Mr. Mason’s affidavit. Alberta Bertuzzi brought a cassette tape record [sic] and accompanied her. Tr. 24. They spoke with Mr. Mason in the break room. Tr. 25. The tape was occasionally paused during recording, but “I don’t think we did anything during the pauses that was not integrity, did not have the integrity of what was there.” Tr. 29. “I know that at some point we spoke to Mr. Mason about the word ‘shim’ and I though [sic] that that could potentially be offensive. to people.” Tr. 29.

Dr. Jacobs testified that after their taped conversation they had another conversation which was not taped, that formed the basis of the affidavit she wrote. Tr. 25-27, 37, 43-44. She admitted that during the second, unrecorded conversation, she tried to talk Mr. Mason out using the word “shim” which appears in his affidavit because “she was worried that people would perceive it as a bigoted term.” ...

Somehow Mr. Mason's use of this term "shim," which Dr. Jacobs recognized was potentially “offensive to people" and "perceive...as a bigoted term," did not in any way discourage Dr. Jacobs from relying on his testimony to make her case against Dr. Beyer. IMHO this fact makes it clear that Dr. Jacobs is at least as "biased against transgendered individiuals" as Mr. Mason was found to be by the MoCo Ethics Commission.

In fact, the MoCo Ethics Commission found the testimony of Ms. Jacobs' two star witnesses to be

"...unpersuasive. Mr. Mason's use of the derogatory term "shim" when referring to Dr. Beyer, evidences a bias against transgendered individuals. Similarly, Mr. Schall displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals, which in the Commission's judgment, makes his testimony not credible..."

Two days ago, Ruth Jacobs was in Annapolis passing out fliers attacking Duchy and Dana for expanding MoCo non-discrimination law to include “gender identity.” Ruth obviously hasn't learned her lesson that discrimination against transgenders is wrong even after the Ethics Commission ruled against her and her "unpersuasive" witnesses.

Jacobs' unsuccessful attempt to smear Dr. Beyer with an ethics complaint based on the testimony of such biased witnesses is a clear demonstration that MoCo's County Council was right to unanimously approve adding "gender identity" to the long list of characteristics from that may not be the basis of discrimination here in Montgomery County.

Hello! Laws are frequently uncertain, that’s why we have to have courts and judges to clarify what they mean, even if they are valid or not. All sorts of laws have been clarified, simplified, changed or declared unconstitutional over the years (usually) to better reflect what we have learned as a society, or through science. Laws change all the time.

Answer: So pass any law regardless? So you a happy with this flawed law?

“This proposed law is not certain if you can’t define or provide the criteria for determining gender identity.”

Can you provide the exact criteria for determining someone’s race? Or religion? There are lots of people who have “mixed” races, and they can even trace some of them through DNA. However, I’ve never seen a DNA test required from anyone bringing up a racial discrimination case. Nor have I ever seen a racist perform a DNA test before deciding whether or not to harass someone for their race. Would he decide not to harass a dark-skinned person if, after testing, the person he intended to harass was only 1/64th black?And who decides whether the Jewish or Catholic guy that was killed by some bigoted act was “religious enough” to qualify for a hate crime enhancement to the penalty for the crime? You can’t find that in their DNA. You could ask some of their friends to see if they attended church regularly, but does that mean they were REALLY religious? Should the perp get off easier if it was just a guy who attended synagogue a couple of times a year?

Answer: Then there are no valid criteria for making distinctions about race and religion for claiming discrimination? Perhaps we should get away from all discrimination laws since we cannot determine if anyone correctly falls into a protected class!IF you can’t determine if a person falls into a protected class then it is impossible to determine if they person was discriminated against because of that class status.

“What are the exact criteria that would allow a person to assert that they are of a sex that is inconsistent with their birth assignment and their actual anatomical presentation?”

This is a bit of a quandary for me. My birth certificate now says “female,” and my “actual anatomical presentation” is also female. For anyone to assert that my sex is inconsistent with my birth assignment would take a whole lot of hounding around private records and court orders in a number of different jurisdictions. That kind of stuff is an invasion of privacy. Most people don’t know of that difference unless I tell them, or they new me before transition.

Answer: If your sense of privacy rights trumps your sense of being discriminated against to the extent that the issue of discrimination cannot be actually challenged or verified then you have a decision to make, don’t you?

"Discrimination laws have been enforced in our country for decades. Certainly there has been controversy over them from a number of complaining quarters, and not everyone agrees with the outcomes of these cases. However, I have yet to see one where someone’s “basic rights” was violated."

how about freedom of speech, religion, press

freedom to associate with whom you please

"Can you please provide at least one (preferably more) specific examples of what you’re talking about?"

sure

how about someone who doesn't like a job applicant who happens to be a transgender?

he is forced to either hire the person or have the burden of proof that he is not discriminating

"Sure Anon, please provide some proof. You’ve been blathering here for years trying to make that point and never have. So please, feel free to provide proof any time."

I think the burden of proving you are suffering some kind of extreme and unfair persecution that requires governmental intervention in personal affairs is yours

"Because most people are smart enough to work through a compromise before going through the hassles of taking their frivolous cases to court."

hey, look

cynco has concocted a non-refutable hypothesis

it might be true regardless of the facts

"Being that I actually KNOW trans people living and transitioning in Montgomery county, I can tell you that at least one court battle was averted when a transwoman explained to her co-worker that the situation was becoming unbearable and that she was considering contacting a lawyer. Within two days the situation was fixed. No lawyers, judges, court cases or lawsuits. Just people taking a step back, a deep breath, and chilling out for a bit to find out a better way to deal with the issue."

so, in other words, if a transgender have some petty dispute going with some co-worker, hey have a weapon to attack with that others don't have

they can just cry "discrimination"

how is that fair?

The one instance of the lawsuit you site isn’t proof of anything, except now that folks have an avenue to pursue cases like that."

Refused at the Counter: Personal Stories"When Angela was 22, desperate to find emergency contraception pills because the condom broke, she and her boyfriend drove around town in search of the drugs that could help prevent an unintended pregnancy....two pharmacies and two hospitals refused to fill a prescription..."

No, I did not say “pass any law regardless.” I was merely pointing out that laws change over time (usually, but not always) to clarify and improve them. The Constitution of the United States wasn’t perfect when it was written and it has been amended 27 times to try and make it better. I may have been the best law written at the time, but just about anything humans do can be improved.

“So you a happy with this flawed law?”

I presume you are referring to HB 235. No, I am not. It did not include “public accommodations” like hospitals, doctor offices, restaurants, hotels, theatres, public libraries, grocery stores, auto repair shops, malls, etc. And before someone tries to scream “see I told you they just want to get into the restrooms!” I would be content with a law that read “public accommodations EXCEPT restrooms, showers, and places of unavoidable nudity” or something like that. I am particularly concerned about hospitals and doctors offices because that’s where I’ve personally had the most difficulty – in the world at large people just see me as a tall, skinny chic. In medical settings though, my medical history often comes up and that freaks some people out. I almost couldn’t get treated for a simple yeast infection because of it. So yes, I agree, it is flawed, but it’s better than no law. There is the small chance that it can be changed later to improve it. But for right now, helping folks keep their jobs is a very useful enhancement to existing code.

I invariably will view this law as helping a variety of trans folks, even though it can be used to help plenty of people who don’t identify as trans too. I also know that if a person does transition on the job, or if they are discovered to be trans after they were hired, this person unofficially becomes an ambassador to the work culture at large. Although many people are completely misinformed about trans issues and individuals, if you have one working with you on a regular basis, you soon begin to realize we’re pretty much just like any other human being you’ve ever met. It becomes much harder to hold onto bigoted stereotypes and discriminatory behavior after that.

“Answer: Then there are no valid criteria for making distinctions about race and religion for claiming discrimination? Perhaps we should get away from all discrimination laws since we cannot determine if anyone correctly falls into a protected class!”

While the Anons have often argued for repealing all discrimination and hate crime laws, realistically I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon, unless of course the Tea Party sweeps the White House and both houses of congress in 2012. Then of course, there’s no telling what might happen.

“IF you can’t determine if a person falls into a protected class then it is impossible to determine if they person was discriminated against because of that class status.”

My point, which was apparently too subtle to be caught by some readers, was that the “exact criteria” Anon was pining for was a futile and irrelevant. Let me try another approach to explain it with some concrete examples. If you look at how discrimination and hate crime laws are enforced, the criteria used to determine if it’s a hate crime is not the classification of the victim, but the motivation of the criminal.

For example, Khadijah Farmer does not identify as “trans” at all, but as a woman. However, that didn’t stop her from getting hauled out of the ladies room while she was trying to take care of personal business by some jerk that thought he knew what she was better than she did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/nyregion/14gender.html

New York actually has an anti-discrimination policy that DOES include restroom provisions, and this woman took advantage of that to redress her grievances -- no woman should get hauled out of the restroom while they are quietly trying to relieve themselves. She won the case not because of her arguably masculine appearance, but because the guy at the restaurant acted like a complete jerk and even ignored her ID which showed her as FEMALE.

As for hate crimes (which HB 235 does not address, just to be clear) see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/nyregion/09assault.html

“Three men came out of the car shouting at the brothers, Jose and Romel Sucuzhanay — something ugly, anti-gay and anti-Latino. Vulgarisms against Hispanics and gay men were heard by witnesses, the police said. One man approached Jose Sucuzhanay, 31, the owner of a real estate agency who has been in New York a decade, and broke a beer bottle over the back of his head. He went down hard.”“Romel Sucuzhanay, 38, who is visiting from Ecuador on a two-month visa, bounded over a parked car and ran as the man with the broken bottle came at him. A distance away, he looked back and saw a second assailant beating his prone brother with an aluminum baseball bat, striking him repeatedly on the head and body. The man with the broken bottle turned back and joined the beating and kicking.”“They used a baseball bat,” said Diego Sucuzhanay, another brother. “I guess the goal was to kill him.”The murder of Jose Sucuzhanay was investigated as a hate crime, not because Jose was gay, (he was not – he was just a bit drunk after leaving a Catholic church party and hanging on to his brother for support) but because the murderers got out of their car yelling anti-gay and anti-Latino epithets.

I have plenty more to respond to, but that will have to be it for right now.

I read one woman's account of a rape where the rapist called her a "whore" while raping her. She wasn't a whore, but he called her one.

So if a rapist calls a woman "lesbian" while raping her, and she's not a lesbian, then he should get more time in jail than the first guy? The woman who was called "lesbian" should get more justice than the woman who was called "whore?"

When the rapist is out in three years for the "whore" crime and the other gets 10 years for the "lesbian" crime, then the "whore" crime victim has to suffer fear that her rapist is let out much sooner than the "lesbian" victim?

"Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on people's right to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation people may be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality and sometimes religion and political views."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-discrimination_law

In the whore/lesbian rape example, the different sentences handed out would be based on hate crimes legislation, not on anti-discrimination laws.

MD legislators are NOT working to enact hate crimes legislation that would allow for different sentences for crimes against members of different groups. Instead, they are trying to add "gender identity" to the already existing anti-discrimination law to ensure all MD residents are treated equally.